CAPITULO I. ANÁLISIS O DIAGNOSTICO GENERAL
NUMERO PREDIAL
phenomenon.
Review of the related literature:
Researchers found few researches similar to the study.
A study titled ‗Teaching Strategies Based on Multiple Intelligences Theory among Science and Mathematics Secondary School Teachers‘ was carried out by Tajularipin, Abdul & Suzieleez Syrene (2010). The study found that teaching strategies based on multiple intelligences suggest teaching science and mathematics in multiple ways. Teachers‘ profiles of multiple intelligences assist them to obtain a better understanding of their potential intelligences and interests in enhancing their teaching strategies.
A study titled ‗An examination of multiple intelligence domains and learning styles of pre- service mathematics teachers: Their reflections on mathematics education‘ was conducted by l Özgen, Tataro_lu, and Alkan (2010). The study aimed at identifying pre-service mathematics teachers‘ multiple intelligence domains and learning style profiles, and tried to establish relationships between them. The same analyses also revealed that the pre- service teachers had ―logical-mathematical‖ and ―visual-spatial‖ as their dominant intelligence domains.
A study titled ‗A Mexican Study of Multiple Intelligences for Pre-Service Teachers of English as a Foreign Language‘ was taken by Carlín, Salazar & Cortés (2013). The authors suggested that it is important to diagnose and promote these intelligences in trainees in a systematic way in order to equip them with knowledge and experience of multiple intelligences in order to use them in their future teacher practice.
Need of the study:- The traditional classroom tends to treat students as a homogeneous group, with the teacher presenting the same exercises to all students at the same time, and expecting the same answers to be produced within similar time limits. Students are expected to absorb the knowledge presented by the teacher with a strong emphasis on the use of language and logical-mathematical analysis. Nowadays the teachers are well aware of the fact that every classroom is full of students who are different from each other in many different ways. Each student comes from a different social, economic and cultural background, each one has
different areas of interest, different ways of expressing themselves, different strengths and weaknesses, and now the teacher is being asked to be aware of the fact that each student also has his own individual intelligence profile, as all these factors can affect the student‘s learning process. If prospective teachers are to succeed at this task, schools of education must design programs that transform the kinds of settings in which novices learn to teach and later become teachers. Teacher educators must practice use of novice methodologies like multiple intelligences approach.
Various researches showing advantages of multiple intelligences based teaching learning. Some of them are:
Providing students with multiple ways to access content improves learning (Hattie, 2011).
Providing students with multiple ways to demonstrate knowledge and skills increases engagement and learning, and provides teachers with more accurate understanding of students' knowledge and skills (Darling-Hammond, 2010).
Instruction should be informed as much as possible by detailed knowledge about students' specific strengths, needs, and areas for growth (Tomlinson, 2014).
There is little scope available in the B.Ed. syllabus for pre service teachers to experience multiple intelligences based teaching – learning as students since lecture method is used as the method of instructions most of the times. Moreover the guidance given to them also cater mostly verbal intelligence as practiced by the teacher educators. The various types of lesson prescribed in the syllabus also follow Harbartian patterns of planning and conducting lessons. No specific endeavors have been made to give systematic training in using multiple intelligences in classroom.
This raised the following questions in the mind of the researcher:
In What way is multiple intelligences theory practised in the present teacher education model?
What are the classroom teaching – learning practices related to multiple intelligences practiced by the teacher educators?
In an attempt to answer all the above questions, the researchers took up the present research.
Statement of the problem:- To assess the existing status in the teacher education colleges regarding the multiple intelligences theory based classroom practices followed by the teacher educators, in Pune city.
Definition of Key Terms and Phrases: Conceptual Definitions:
Multiple Intelligences Theory: According to this theory, "Humans are able to know the world through language, logical-mathematical analysis, spatial representation, musical thinking, the use of the body to solve problems or to make things, an understanding of other individuals, and an understanding of ourselves. Where individuals differ is in the strength of these intelligences - the so-called profile of intelligences -and in the ways in which such intelligences are invoked and combined to carry out different tasks, solve
diverse problems, and progress in various domains." (Gardner, 1991). The seven intelligences proposed by Gardner are linguistic, logical-mathematical, spatial, bodily- kinesthetic, musical, interpersonal and intrapersonal. (Gardner, 1983)
Teacher Education: Training to become a teacher, usually at an institution of higher education (Collins English Dictionary). Any of the formal programs that have been established for the preparation of teachers at the elementary- and secondary-school levels.(Encyclopedia Britannica)
Intelligence: The ability to learn, understand and think in a logical way about things. (Oxford Dictionary, 2016)
Operational Definitions:
Classroom Practices: The classroom activities used by the teacher educators in the teacher education colleges affiliated to Savitribai Phule Pune University which is based on the multiple intelligences theory.
Teacher Education Colleges:- All the Teacher Education colleges in Pune City which are affiliated to SPPU.
Teacher Educators:- The lecturers who work in teacher education colleges and provide formal instruction to pre service teachers.
Objectives of the Research:
1. To assess the existing status in the teacher education colleges regarding the multiple intelligences theory based classroom practices followed by the teacher educators.
Method of Study: Survey – Cross – Sectional survey design
Population: All the teacher educators teaching Bachelors of Education (B.Ed.) course in teacher education colleges in Pune City affiliated to Savtribai Phule Pune University.
Sampling Method: Purposive Sampling
Sample Size: 33 Teacher educators teaching B.Ed. course in teacher education colleges affiliated to Savitribai Phule Pune University in Pune City.
Scope
The research is concerned with colleges affiliated to Savitribai Phule Pune University, Pune.
All eight intelligences namely: Verbal, Visual, Logical – Mathematical, Bodily Kinesthetic, Interpersonal, Intrapersonal, Musical and naturalistic are considered for the survey.
Delimitations
The study was delimited to teacher educators teaching in teacher education colleges affiliated to Savitribai Phule Pune University within Pune City.
The study was delimited to English medium teacher education colleges in Pune CityLimitations
The motivation levels, fatigue, mood, past experience of the teacher educators and pre service teachers which may affect their responses were beyond the control of the researcher.
Tools for Data Collection: Questionnaire to assess use of Multiple Intelligences & lesson Planning: Details in Table 1 given below:
Sr.No. Item number Type
1 Total 45 items 43 Close ended and 2 Open ended 2 41, 42 & 43 Options: Yes & No
3 1 to 40 Options: Always, Sometime & Never 4 1 to 40 items were divided into set of 5 statements related to multiple
intelligences.
Questionnaire to assess use of Reflective Practices: Details in Table 2 given below:
Sr.No. Item number Type
1 Total 14 items 10 Close ended and 3 Open ended 2 Close ended Options: Yes & No
Data Analysis of Questionnaire on multiple intelligences and lesson planning
The quantitative data obtained from the close ended items were analyzed for all the 8 intelligences. Chi square was used to find if the difference between the preference give to various intelligence was by chance or not.
Computation of Chi Square from Contingency Table 3
Preference Type of Intelligence fo fe fo - fe (fo - fe)2 (fo - fe)2 / fe
Always Verbal 82 67.13 14.87 221.12 3.294 Visual 68 67.13 0.87 0.76 0.011 logical Mathematical 94 67.13 26.87 722.00 10.755 Bodily-Kinesthetic 56 67.13 -11.13 123.88 1.845 Intrapersonal 72 67.13 4.87 23.72 0.353 Interpersonal 90 67.13 22.87 523.04 7.791 Musical 22 67.13 -45.13 2036.72 30.340 Naturalistic 53 67.13 -14.13 199.66 2.974 Rarely Verbal 80 83.13 -3.13 9.80 0.118 Visual 93 83.13 9.87 97.42 1.172 logical Mathematical 62 83.13 -21.13 446.48 5.371 Bodily-Kinesthetic 99 83.13 15.87 251.86 3.030 Intrapersonal 83 83.13 -0.13 0.02 0.000 Interpersonal 65 83.13 -18.13 328.70 3.954 Musical 94 83.13 10.87 118.16 1.421 Naturalistic 89 83.13 5.87 34.46 0.414 Never Verbal 3 14.75 -11.75 138.06 9.360 Visual 4 14.75 -10.75 115.56 7.835
logical Mathematical 9 14.75 -5.75 33.06 2.242 Bodily-Kinesthetic 10 14.75 -4.75 22.56 1.530 Intrapersonal 10 14.75 -4.75 22.56 1.530 Interpersonal 10 14.75 -4.75 22.56 1.530 Musical 49 14.75 34.25 1173.06 79.530 Naturalistic 23 14.75 8.25 68.06 4.614 χ2 181.01 Testing of Hypothesis
Null hypothesis was stated for the study: There no significant difference in the classroom practices of the teacher educators based on multiple intelligences theory when they are teaching in classroom.
Research Hypothesis was stated for the study: There is a difference in the classroom practices of the teacher educators based on multiple intelligences theory when they are teaching in the classroom.
The computed value of χ2
, 181.01 was quite larger than the critical value 29.141 which is taken as quite significant at 0.01 level. Hence, the null hypothesis i.e. there no significant difference in the practices of the teacher educators with respect to multiple intelligences when they are teaching in classroom is rejected and research hypothesis i.e. there is a difference in the practices of the teacher educators regarding the intelligences when they are teaching in the classroom is accepted.
Qualitative Data Analysis: Figures below shows the axial coding of the qualitative data obtained from the questionnaire on multiple intelligences.
Figure 2: Responses of teacher educators regarding the various aspects of multiple intelligences
Lesson Planning Aspects Implementation Aspects Theoretical Aspects Theory of multiple intelligences Applications Strategies
Concept of all intelligences
Evolution of multiple intelligences theory
Assessments
Lesson plans
Different approached to planning lessons
Including intelligences in classroom
Use of MI in with large number of students
Use for different subjects
Example of lesson plans
Activities for all intelligences
Procedure for selecting activities
Samples
Practical guidelines
How to conduct
Discussion: The respondents have given what they would like to learn about multiple intelligences theory. The above Figure 2 shows the responses analyzed and categorized into three main categories: ‗Theoretical Aspects‘, ‗Implementation Aspects‘ and ‗Lesson planning Aspects‘. Using Axial Coding the theme that arose from the responses was that ‗The teacher educators wanted to know more about the multiple intelligences theory and practical guidelines regarding its lesson planning and implementation‘.
Figure 3: Responses of teacher educators regarding Lesson Planning Discussion: The above Figure 3 shows that the respondents provided a number of lesson planning methods that they use for teaching. These strategies have been categorized into ‗Lesson Planning Methods‘ and ‗Activities‘. The figure above shows that the theme (using Axial coding) that the ―Teacher educators use different methods of lesson planning which are catering primarily to verbal, logical mathematical and interpersonal intelligence, however no methods were mentioned catering to other intelligence‖.
The teacher educators wanted to know more about implementation and lesson planning using multiple intelligence theory.
Teacher educators use different methods of lesson planning which are catering to verbal, logical mathematical and interpersonal intelligence, however no methods were mentioned catering to other
The Teacher educators use methods of lesson planning mainly catering to verbal / logical
mathematical/Interpersonal intelligence and are willing to learn more about application of multiple intelligences in their classrooms.
Figure 4: Axial Coding‟ and „Selective Coding‟ of the qualitative data
After analyzing the responses using the ‗axial coding‘ the data was put into ‗themes‘. Figure 4 shows the ‗themes‘ generated and the ‗final theory‘ reached by the researcher using the ‗selective coding‘ phase in Grounded theory. The final theory indicates The Teacher educators use methods of lesson planning mainly catering to verbal / logical mathematical/Interpersonal intelligence and are willing to learn more about application of multiple intelligences in their classrooms. Their responses showed that they are bit confused between the methods, approaches and activities used in their classroom and none of them mentioned use of multiple intelligences approach to lesson planning. This confusion may be because of lack of practical use and only theoretical knowledge.
Qualitative data Analysis using questionnaire on reflective practices: After doing the axial coding of the responses of the teacher educators on reflective practices a theory was obtained which is shown in figure 5 given below.
Figure 5: Axial Coding‟ and „Selective Coding‟ of the qualitative data
After analyzing the responses using the ‗axial coding‘ the data was put into ‗themes‘. Figure 4.15 shows the ‗themes‘ generated and the ‗final theory‘ reached by the researcher using the ‗selective coding‘ phase in Grounded theory. The final theory indicates the teacher educators are aware of their qualities, strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats as a teacher, but lack knowledge of reflective strategies.
Major Findings for the survey: The Teacher Educators
Use verbal, Logical – Mathematical & Interpersonal intelligence activities in their day to day teaching. Rarely use Musical, Naturalistic, Intrapersonal, Bodily Kinesthetic and visual Intelligence.
The teacher educators were able to reflect on the qualities they possessed as teachers at personal and professional level‟
Teacher educators reflected on their personal / professional strengths, skill limitations, opportunities for professional development and threats that are under their control
The teacher educators are not well aware of reflective strategies as they have mentioned normal teaching activities / practices as reflective strategies
The teacher educators are aware of their qualities, strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats as a teacher, but lack knowledge of reflective strategies.
Use less of Herbartian steps of lesson, but are confused between lesson planning method and activities
Never used multiple intelligences approach to teaching, but are keen on learning theoretical, implementation and planning aspects related to multiple intelligences.
Always plan lesson before teaching and mentioned use of reflective practices, but could not list the reflective strategies. However are willing to learn more about reflective practices.
Were able to list their qualities as a teacher and did SWOT analysis, but of personal then as a teacher.
Conclusions:
Teacher educators are aware about the Multiple Intelligences, but mostly prefer using Verbal Intelligence and sometimes cater to Logical – Mathematical and Interpersonal Intelligence while conducting their sessions.
Teacher Educators are unaware of reflective practices.
References:
Agency of Healthcare Research and Quality. (2014). Essentials of the Research Plan. Retrieved August 26, 2014 from http://www.ahrd.gov/funding/process/grant-app-basics/esstplan.html
Armstrong, T. (2010). Multiple intelligences. Retrieved January 4, 2014 from http://www.thomasarmstrong.com/multiple_intelligences.htm
Chaudhary (2012). A comparative study of the effectiveness of multiple intelligences based teaching and non – multiple intelligences based teaching of some units of History for standard VI. Unpublished PhD Thesis, SNDT Women‟s University, Mumbai
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research Design Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches (3 rd ed.). Nebraska: Sage Publications
Creswell, J.W. (2015). Educational Research Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research (4th ed.). Pearson publishing
Creswell, J.W. (2014). Research Design Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches (4th ed.). Retrieved November 19, 2015, from
https://books.google.co.in/books?hl=en&lr=&id=EbogAQAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PRI&dq=qualitative +research+creswell+2013&ots=caeSnQRyxb&sig=LVdC4FhhLgzKznqtueexpWirE#v=onepa ge&q&f=false
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books. Gardner, H. (2008). Five minds for the future. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business Press. Hammond, N. (2007). How can multiple intelligence theory be used to foster teacher development,
support, and informed curriculum supplementation? Unpublished thesis, Retrieved from http://neilhammond.blogspot.in/2012/01/how-can-multiple-intelligence-theory-
be.html#!/2012/01/how-can-multiple-intelligence-theory-be.html Gardner. (2010). Multiple intelligences. Retrieved August 26, 2014 from. http://www.howardgardner.com/MI/mi.html
Gardner‟s Theory of Multiple Intelligences (n,d.). Retrieved July 7, 2015 from
http://www.niu.edu/facdev/resources/guide/learning/howard_gardner_theory_multiple_intelligences.pdf Joyce, B., & Weil, M. (2009). Models of teaching, (8th Edition). New Delhi: PHI Learning Private
Limited.
Lane, C. Multiple intelligences (n,d.). Retrieved January 8, 2015 from http://www.tecweb.org/styles/gardner.html
National Curriculum Framework. (2005). Retrieved from http://www.educationforallindia.com Petty, G. (2002, February 1). 25 ways for Teaching Without Talking: Presenting Students with New
Material in Theory Lessons. Retrieved January 2014 from https://www.dkit.ie/system/files/25waysforTWT.pdf
Rasundram (2012). Analytical study of the use of teaching learning activities in Geography based on multiple intelligences approach‟. Unpublished M.Ed Thesis, SNDT Womens University, Mumbai
Robin J.F., & Brian M. P.(2002). How to differentiate learning. USA : Corwin, A Sage company Roy, S.S. (2016). Cooperative learning strategies for effective teaching to pre service teachers.
Unpublished PhD thesis, Savitribai Phule Pune University formerly the University of Pune. Singh, J.P. (2009). Implementing multiple intelligences in the classroom. Journal Teacher Support:
NCTE, 1(2), 48-54.
Tapkir (2007). A study of the effectiveness of multiple intelligences approach in teaching – learning for the topic in Science in 5th Std. Unpublished Thesis, SNDT Womens University, Mumbai Teacher education models (n,d.). Retrieved June 2013 from
https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/blogs/dario-banegas/theory-practice-language-teacher-education- part-3
Teddlie, C., & Yu, F. (2001). Mixed Methods Sampling L A Typology with Examples. Journal of Mixed Method Research I (7). Retrieved May 14, 2015 from
http://www.sagepub.com/bjohnsonstudy/articles/teddlie.pdf
Vartak (2007). A comparative study of the effectiveness of multiple intelligences based teaching and non – multiple intelligences based teaching of some units of Environmental Education for standard XI. Published PhD Thesis, SNDT Womens University, Mumbai
Williams,R.B. (2002). Multiple intelligences for differentiating learning: Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Woolfolk,A., Misra,G., & Jha, A.K. (2012). Fundamentals of Educational Psychology (11 th
ed.).Pearson:India.
Xie, J. C. & Lin, R.L. (2009). Research on multiple intelligences teaching and assessment. Asian journal of management and humanity sciences, 4(2-3),106 – 124.Retrieved from
STRESS MANAGEMENT: MANIFESTATION OF INNER AND GLOBAL PEACE Dr. Helen Jadhav, Pushpanjali College of Education, [email protected]
Abstract
“Each one has to find his peace from within. And peace to be real must be unaffected by outside circumstances.” ― Mahatma Gandhi
Peace of mind or inner peace is a state of mental and emotional calmness, having no unnecessary worries, fears or stress. In this state, the mind is quiet, and you experience a sense of happiness and freedom. Peace helps to promotes human rights, democratic norms and value. It helps to create the feeling of love, trust, tolerance, and brotherhood among people. Inner peace is the key for global peace. Among the different factors, stress is the factor that triggers the inner peace of a person. Reasons of stress can be plenty depending upon the individual and the problems they are facing. Reducing stress can lead to inner peace. Stress Management encompasses techniques to deal with internal or external stimulus that triggers the fight-or-flight response. Keeping in view the importance of stress management skill as a key of inner and global peace the researcher had keen interest to study Stress Management skill found among adolescents in vasai region.
Introducation: Peace is a state of harmony, the absence of hostility. Peace is a civil right of every living being. Peace is the mother of civilization and war is the demon of destruction. History of civilization and development has witness that no community can progress if there is